Kendinya Hall v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00123-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6172]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA DOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00123-REP-RCY)
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kendinya Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Kendinya Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that
the petition be dismissed as time-barred and advised Hall that failure to file timely
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order
based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is
necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the
parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hall has
waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?